Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-02-27

R2400/2017-3

Contested design: 003023365-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The Board dismisses the appeal and orders the invalidity applicant to bear the holder's costs.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que la solicitante de nulidad sufrague las costas de la titular.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

FABULOUS CIPHER, LDA.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua da Mabor 104, Braga-Vilanova de Famalicão-Lousado, 4760 813 Lousado, Portugal

Represented by

GARRIGUES IP, S.L.P.

Holder · RCD owner

PARFOIS - BARATA & RAMILO, S.A.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Rua do Sistelo, 755 - Lugar de Santegãos, 4435-429 Rio Tinto, Portugal

Represented by

SANTIAGO MEDIANO ABOGADOS, S.L.P.

Prior art cited (9)

Web disclosure

Table model 'Stockholm'

www.houzz.com · www.houzz.com · disclosed 2016-02-26

Web disclosure

Table model 'Como'

www.cluliving.com · www.cluliving.com · disclosed 2015-03-11

Web disclosure

Table model 'Copelincontract'

www.copelincontract.com · www.copelincontract.com · disclosed 2016-01-16

Web disclosure

Table model 'Nuts and Woods'

http://nutsandwoods.de · http://nutsandwoods.de · disclosed 2015-03-17

Web disclosure

Table model 'Rubyliving'

http://rubyliving.com · http://rubyliving.com · disclosed 2012-05-23

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Table model 'De Vos'

internet · disclosed 2016-02-22

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Table model '1stdlibs'

internet · disclosed 2014-03-13

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Table model 'Knoll'

internet · disclosed 2015-09-09

Web disclosure⚠ rejected as evidence

Table model 'Avetex'

internet · disclosed 2015-03-31

Legal grounds invoked

Article 5Article 6Article 25(1)(b)Article 25(1)(c)Article 25(1)(d)Article 25(1)(e)Article 25(1)(f)Article 25(1)(g)Article 56Article 57Article 70(1)

Argument summary

›Applicant (appellant) argued the contested RCD for a table (mesas) lacked individual character because it shared a round wooden top on an interlaced metal wire support structure with prior designs (Stockholm, Como, Copelincontract, Nuts and Woods, Rubyliving) and introduced new prior designs (De Vos, 1stdlibs, Knoll, Avetex) on appeal; it maintained designer freedom was unlimited and the informed user included non-professionals.
›Holder (respondent) argued only prior designs cited in the original application could be considered, that new designs introduced on appeal must be excluded, and that the MCR differed from the prior designs in the support system (number and arrangement of rods and the base shape).
›The Board excluded the four new designs introduced at appeal stage as inadmissible, finding no discretion to admit them since prior designs must be included in the invalidity application itself per Article 28 CDIR.
›On individual character, the Board found the designer had broad creative freedom and that the MCR produced a different overall impression from each prior design: differences in the support base shape (two trapezoidal pieces vs. hexagonal/square/triangular/four-point bases) and the complexity of the metal rod network were clearly perceptible to the informed user.
›Appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to bear holder's costs.

Deciding panel

ChairTh. M. Margellos
RapporteurC. Rusconi
MemberH. Salmi
RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

Language	Type	Source link
enEnglish (en)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanish	original	Download original from EUIPO ↗